This thread is intended for what we can positively do to avoid and mitigate and even stop the industrial pollution causing forced climate change. Inevitably, there are consequences as already variously highlighted.

All positive ideas welcomed for discussion! (Please leave the negativity and doom to the Denial thread.)

... "What really surprised us was that this energy use was a tiny amount, and yet it can create such a wide impact far away from the heat source," said Guang Zhang, a scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, who led the study. "We didn't expect it to be this much."

Global temperature averages were barely affected by the big city heat, barely .01C on average. But big cities had a noticeable impact on regional temperatures almost on a continental scale.

Researchers said the extra heat should be taken into account in future climate projections. ...

... The penny had to drop eventually – fossil fuels like coal might be more valuable if they were used to make medicines, chemicals and fertilisers rather than wasted by being burned.

While we know that fossil fuels are used to make all sorts of everyday objects such as plastics, carbon fibre, soap, aspirins, solvents and dyes, it has never occurred to most of us how we will make these things when the coal, gas and oil run out. ...

Minor quibbles over the last 0.01 deg C whilst the fossil fuels are actually too valuable to burn?

A study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, found that the heat thrown off by major metropolitan areas on America's east coast caused winter warming across large areas of North America, thousands of miles away from those cities.

On the flip side, however, changes in atmospheric conditions had an opposite effect in Europe – lowering autumn temperatures by as much as 1 degree C (1.8F).

"What really surprised us was that this energy use was a tiny amount, and yet it can create such a wide impact far away from the heat source," said Guang Zhang, a scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, who led the study. "We didn't expect it to be this much."

If this is pure heat driven, what does this imply if the energy source was 100% green without any CO2 emissions. Is the problem that we are industrialized? It is just overpopulation? How do we solve it if going green will not stop the issues that our cities present to the planet's climate?

If this is pure heat driven, what does this imply if the energy source was 100% green without any CO2 emissions. Is the problem that we are industrialized? It is just overpopulation? How do we solve it if going green will not stop the issues that our cities present to the planet's climate?

That study highlights the large local effects from local land use. Ok, so cities are an extreme example but that clearly shows yet another strong influence that we have directly on the world about us.

As for your glib "duh, models wrong again...": I guess you missed that the global effect was 0.01 deg C... That highlights more how the models are being refined to ever yet finer detail. We already know the big story and the multiple options that can play out. The big gamble of Russian Roulette that our politicians and industry fat cats are playing is that of which direction we go, how bad, and when.

A turn-around for the good would be a good and smart move for all. However, that requires smashing the subsidies and profits of Big Fossil Fuels. We have alternatives that do not mean we bring the planet to a standstill. As usual, it's the old story of politics and influence...

... The publication of the government's report on proposals and policies (RPP) has brought a joint call from opposition parties for greater clarity. ...

... "Almost half of all carbon emissions come from housing and transport sectors, but recently we learned that the Scottish government is rolling back its plans to make new builds more energy efficient."...

... "We are committed to tackling climate change - Scotland has the best emissions reductions in western Europe, ahead of Germany, Denmark and England - and are already more than halfway to meeting our 2020 target of 42 per cent, but we are not in any way complacent about the scale of challenge we face."...

... Mr Salmond said the huge market for offshore wind beyond 2020 was underlined by the new carbon emissions target.

In 2010, emissions from electricity grid activity in Scotland were estimated to amount to 347 grams of carbon dioxide per Kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity generated.

... China's state council released a notice last week revealing plans to proceed with over 60 new hydroelectric projects on three major rivers...

... Chinese environmental authorities have long considered hydropower an antidote to the country's overwhelming reliance on coal.

The river, also known as the Thanlwin, begins on the Tibetan plateau and winds through Thailand before ending in a Burmese estuary. Its headwaters support 5 million people from 13 ethnic groups...

... A recent analysis of up to 60 Chinese and American scientific papers suggested that the weight of water in the massive Zipingpu Dam reservoir may have caused the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, which killed about 80,000 people.

The state council notice also mentions the Xiaonanhai hydropower station on the Yangtze river, a $4.75bn, seven-and-a-half-year project designed to have a capacity of 1.76 gigawatts ... Critics say that the project will displace about 40,000 people...

As for your glib "duh, models wrong again...": I guess you missed that the global effect was 0.01 deg C... That highlights more how the models are being refined to ever yet finer detail.

Thank you for confirming that the model is wrong. It is a healthy thing you have done. To finally admit we don't have the answer. If you can retain that skepticism then you can contribute to a solution.

However you miss the point. The model has a variance of 1.8 deg C with reality. Does that mean that our baseline instrument reading could also be out of whack by that amount? After all that wasn't known until now so it could have not been part of the data massage necessary due to changing conditions at the instrument sites; Now we have evidence conditions at an instrument site can be a 1000 mile circle! Many questions should be asked. That is science.

If you can retain that skepticism then you can contribute to a solution.

My Bad.

You do seem to realize that a solution is needed, ergo a problem exists.

You seem to expend more energy attacking the messenger than the message.

... you can contribute to a solution.

...................................................Yes this smacks of hypocrisy, attacking the Attacker of the Messenger.My Bad.

Until you know the magnitude of the problem you can't design a solution.

Models are algorithms based on theory. If they aren't giving answers that match with reality, there are a couple possibilities. One, the theory is wrong. Two, the algorithm is wrong and doesn't match the theory. Three, the calculations aren't being done correctly or with sufficient precision. Four, the initial data set or conditions are wrong. Of course more that one of these things may be at issue.

I am saying the alarmist posts about how bad things are, without the realization behind it that the fix, if that alarmist model is correct, is the deindustrialization of humans and the depopulation of humans, is beginning to sound a lot like the sky is falling and every new report says the sky might have slumped a bit but it didn't fall, but it still will fall.

... I am saying the alarmist posts about how bad things are, without the realization behind it that the fix, if that alarmist model is correct, is the deindustrialization of humans and the depopulation of humans, is beginning to sound a lot like the sky is falling and every new report says the sky might have slumped a bit but it didn't fall, but it still will fall.

Is that why reality is not your alarmist case?

Is that also why multiple models are run and compared to see what extremes might happen and also to average out what can happen or most likely will happen... There is the method you ignore called running an ensemble so that the models themselves are characterized...

We still have the means to avoid the worst calamities and to still make progress. All a question of when we start and whether we start soon enough and seriously enough...

... The Independent Panel on Forestry (IPF) was established in March 2011 after a ministerial U-turn on plans to dispose of a chunk of its woodlands.

The Rt Rev James Jones, Bishop of Liverpool and who chaired the Panel, welcomed the government's response saying it was an "unequivocal endorsement" of the IPF's recommendations.

"I welcome the rescinding of the policy for disposal of 15% of the estate. This is a recognition that the public benefits that flow from forests and woodlands have a legitimate claim on the public purse," he said.

Hen Anderson, co-founder of campaign group Save Our Woods also welcomed the government's response, recognising that it was a vindication of the 500,000 who signed an online petition against the proposal to sell the estate.

"Very positive - an exciting result for us. Two years ago they were flogging off the lot, but a half a million people kicked them in the pants, amazing result."

The IPF also recommended that woodland cover should increase from 10% to 15% by 2060. But the government says it will only increase this to 12%. ...

... There are in excess of 1,000 publicly owned forests in England, covering an estimated 258,000 hectares.

The Public Forest Estate (PFE) accounts for 18% of English woodlands, and covers about 9% of the nation - one of the lowest percentages in Europe. ...

Or was it that the pressure of public outcry won the day for this one? Is this where we all need to get more emotive to protect our environment and similarly so to curb all pollution?

Is that also why multiple models are run and compared to see what extremes might happen and also to average out what can happen or most likely will happen... There is the method you ignore called running an ensemble so that the models themselves are characterized...

I think you are confusing a "model" and a "scenario" but perhaps the literature does so.

model: A hypothetical description of a complex entity or process
scenario: A postulated sequence of possible events

A model is the expression of the theory in the form of equations which are reduced to a computational exercise.

A scenario is the assumptions you plug into the model about future conditions, e.g. how many tons of CO2 are released into the atmosphere per year.

When you run a model with the scenario of historic data and it does not match observed conditions, there is an obvious error in the model. Such being the case with the IPCC model that is outside its error bars.

That leaves you with three possibilities.
1) The theory is wrong.
2) The equations describing the theory are wrong.
3) Computational error. (programming bug)

It appears that the climate people are thinking it is number one. That because they are constantly "refining" the model. They are adding new parameters of things they believed would have no effect on the outcome. e.g. the heat of a big city.

The real issue though is climate is a chaotic system. In a deterministic system, being off a small percent isn't a big deal. An example being the difference in gravity between Newton and Einstein. For most of us most of the time we never know the difference. However in a chaotic system where miniscule changes in the input make tremendous changes in the output, being off is cause for concern. It says the ass-u-me-ed parameters are not everything that is going on and offers no confidence that what you expect is the driving item is in fact the driving item.

That earth is getting warmer doesn't depend on a model, that is historic data. However every time that data gets looked at and massaged again and the rate of warming goes down means there may be issues with the quality of the data or the theory behind the measurement if not made by instrument or the conditions of the instrument and its surroundings. The error bars get bigger.

Humans are warming the planet. However until theory matches real observations, we can't say with certainty why it is happening. It may be because of some parameter that has been assumed to be insignificant but really isn't. Because NYC is warming the planet 1.8C 1000 miles upwind and theory says the effect should be 0.01C speaks more to the way we build cities and live in them changing weather patterns than it does CO2 caused global warming. It could be that the CO2 effect is being totally swamped out by some other factor.

In any case the alarmist predictions of a tripping point and that we have past it and we are doomed to Venus's fate are pure BS, but they were made.

The question remains, even if we can't come up with solid numbers, how much do we have to deindustrialize and how much do we have to depopulate so that Darwin doesn't get us? Or are we assuming that CO2 is a much smaller factor now and that some real modest cuts and we can continue our lifestyle and growth rate for 10,000 years?

our "lifestyle" needs to change, and I do not think de-industrialization is an answer at this point. Moving beyond OLD technologies, reducing birth rates, and moving forward to clean technologies. Will it be enough? No idea, but I do know not moving towards them is suicidal. And waiting for developing countries to lead the way is foolish.

As far as descrepencies in models, if information is missing or incorrect, it can be added or corrected. This is why so many different models are being processed still. There are in fact many variables to human caused warming far beyond the direct outputs. Deforestation, changes in our oceans/destruction of coral,kelp,carbon sinks... there is incredible amount of data. But most of which can be directly linked to what humans have done on/to this planet.
Janice

... [Lots of techno babble of various fidelity...] ... Humans are warming the planet. However until theory matches real observations, we can't say with certainty why it is happening. It may be because of some parameter that has been assumed to be insignificant but really isn't. Because NYC is warming the planet 1.8C 1000 miles upwind and theory says the effect should be 0.01C ... [More techno babble of various fidelity...]

Very good GC-isms. I almost for a moment thought you might have read something up rather than the usual random trolling. Unfortunately, as more often than not, you are just adding confusion and noise.

The models are good science and are refined enough to match reality closely enough that we can use them to untangle the physical effects at play. We use many models just as craftsmen similarly use many tools. Each are good for their particular job/purpose. There is also a further world of science confirming that we are very definitely the primary cause. The story is not just from the models, we have wide confirmation elsewhere.

As for that old claim of all too complicated... Only for your little head? Also, please do not confuse weather (daily stuff affected by the wings of a butterfly and chaos theory), to that of climate and longer term effects where things 'average out'. We've explained that one too many times, repeatedly. Please read Wikipedia for enlightenment.

And your claimed 0.01 deg C is for the WORLD AVERAGE DIFFERENCE. Not the temperature difference locally, which is what those articles are all about. Sheeesh, if you can't even read let alone get your numbers unmuddled!

Please see this video right through. Then recite back the lines about the climate predictions made for the polar regions for now that were made back in the 1960's. Then please explain about models if you can keep to reality.

Please take your further noise over to the DENIAL thread rather than pollute this POSITIVE thread of SOLUTIONS.

No further comment to you on here. You are welcome to befuddle us on the DENIAL thread.

Then you had better not post another "sky is warming" in this thread. That ditto post belongs in the denial thread.

Now, how much warming is acceptable?

Or put so a ditto head can figure it out, if we are going to build a rocket to go to Mars, don't you think is is important to know where Mars is?

Assuming that reduction in population growth is going to be a required part of the solution ...

Some things to consider, how do we convince a illiterate third world person to use birth control?

How do we convince the Government of Japan, which presently is doing all it can to increase its birth rate, to allow its population to decline?

Assuming that some reduction in the rate of industrialization is going to be part of the solution ...

How do we convince the illiterate third world voter to forgo any hope of a first world life for his grandchildren and remain hunter - gatherer?

How do we convince the Government of China to cease industrialization?

Martin, you see these are the valid questions that belong in the solutions thread, not more denial ditto posts that it getting warmer. If you have no solutions don't post here! Allow engineering to happen.

Zero should be the goal. We may discuss and argue about taking it back to what level AFTER that is accomplished.

"Assuming that reduction in population growth is going to be a required part of the solution ...

Some things to consider, how do we convince a illiterate third world person to use birth control?

How do we convince the Government of Japan, which presently is doing all it can to increase its birth rate, to allow its population to decline?"

We can start by making an example by making sure it is available and affordable here.

"Assuming that some reduction in the rate of industrialization is going to be part of the solution ..."

We need to move past the age of fossil fuels. If we lead a better example, Other countries might be convinced to SKIP that level of industrialization
and go straight to clean energy. This could for the most part avoid increasing dependency on the increasingly overpriced fossil fuel industry.

"How do we convince the illiterate third world voter to forgo any hope of a first world life for his grandchildren and remain hunter - gatherer?

How do we convince the Government of China to cease industrialization?"

... Al Gore, the former US Vice President, has accused Chancellor George Osborne of taking a "short-sighted" approach to climate change and green economic growth, warning that businesses increasingly want to see ambitious action on global warming. ...

... Responding to Osborne's anti-green rhetoric, specifically a claim in 2011, that "we're not going to save the planet by putting our country out of business", Gore said it was "short-sighted indeed" to believe the future of business and the future of the environment were in conflict.

"They are not," he said. "We can create millions of new jobs by leading this transition towards renewable energy sources, much higher levels of efficiency and recycling and sustainable capitalism. ...